Yoga @ Yogaraj vs State of Tamil Nadu

N.V. Balasubramanian, J.—The petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 11.4.2003. The detenu has been classified as

Goonda.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the original order made in English, the detaining authority has stated that the act

was committed in the busy evening time in busy area very near to Railway Station. The detaining authority has referred to the incident which took

place at Jones Road, Saidapet very near to Saidapet Railway Station and according to the detention order the incident took place on 28.3.2003 at

about 8 hours in the morning. However, in the English order, it is mentioned that in the busy evening time the incident has occurred. It is stated in

the other order in Tamil version that the incident took place in the morning time. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is non-

application of mind on the part of the detaining authority as in the English order he has stated that the incident took place in the busy evening time,

but in the Tamil order, he has stated that the incident took place in the morning time.

Learned Government Advocate submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the detenu as the incident has actually taken place in the

morning, which is referred to in the order in Tamil version, but only in English version it is stated that the incident took place in the evening but in all

other documents, the time has been specified and no prejudice has been caused to the detenu to make an effective representation. He further

submitted that ''the busy evening time'' in the English version is a mere typographical error and it does not vitiate the order of detention passed by

the detaining authority.

There is no dispute about the fact that in the order furnished to the detenu in English version, the detaining authority has stated that committing

the grave crime, in the public, in a busy area in the busy evening time, very near to the railway station, in the heart of Chennai City would create

alarm and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the people of the area. However, in the Tamil version of the same order, which has been furnished

to the detenu, it has been stated that the incident took place in the busy morning time. Further, it is stated that both the orders are originals and both

orders, if kept together, show that there was non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority as to the exact time of occurrence and

there is an erroneous description as to the time of occurrence in the English version of the order and the defect is not a technical defect, but of a

substantial character. Hence, we are of the view, the statement made in English version of the order that the incident took place in the busy evening

time cannot be regarded as a mere typographical error which was overlooked by the detaining authority and if there is any such error, he should

have rectified the same. The difference in the version of the Commissioner of Police as to the time of occurrence in the two orders is of relevance

and of significance. We are of the view that it cannot be said that in the morning the locality would be as busy as it is in the evening. Even accepting

that a place near the Railway Station in Saidapet would always be busy, the intensity of busy in the morning time in the area cannot be said to be of

the same intensity during evening. It may be true that in the morning time, near a railway station the area may be more busy as there may be

convergence of office goers, school going children and college going students, but it can definitely be stated that there will be a vast difference in

the intensity of busy in the locality between morning and evening on the same day. We therefore hold that there has been a complete non-

application of mind on the part of the detaining authority when he stated that the incident took place in the busy evening time. We are not able to

accept the arguments of the learned Government Advocate that due to typographical error, the mistake had occurred in the English version of the

order which means that in the vital part of the order as to the time of occurrence of incident there is a serious mistake in the English version of the

order and the wrong description as to the time of occurrence would vitiate the order of detention.

A similar question was also considered by a Division Bench of this Court in H.C.P. No. 62 of 2003 dated 27.10.2003 wherein it was held that

when the detaining authority has not bothered even to read the first information report as to the time when the incident took place, there would be a

non-application of mind. We therefore hold that there was a complete non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority as to the time

of occurrence and since there is a difference as to the time of occurrence in the two orders, the order of detention is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the order of detention is quashed. The Habeas Corpus petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless he is

required in connection with some other case.